WRITTEN QUESTION E-0722/02 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Risk of collapse because of non-standard construction methods for motels and restaurants belonging to the Van der Valk concern with branches in various EU Member States.
Date: 2002-03-15
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: application of EU law, building industry, building regulations, building safety, competence of the Member States, hotel industry

29.8.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 205 E/203

Farmers face competition in the market place and economical viability means foremost to produce at
3.
competitive costs. Of course, competitiveness must not be achieved at the expense of the environment.
Therefore, farmers, as any other producer or citizen, must act subject to clearly defined rules with respect
to the environment.

4.
The Commission does not believe that organic production becomes less expensive by confronting
conventional farmers with stricter and, therefore, more costly environmental constraints. However, one
would assume that establishing higher environment standards would improve the competitive position of
organic farming vis-à-vis conventional farmers as long as the organic farmers manage to comply with such
standards at lower costs.

Since both conventional

farming and organic farming are subject

5.
to the same mandatory
environmental standards, the Commission would not support a view according to which the competition
farming is unfair, provided that the environmental standards are
between organic and conventional
effectively enforced by Member States, which is often not the situation. The Commission does, however,
acknowledge that organic farming provides environmental benefits beyond legally binding standards. The
provision of such benefits by organic farming give cause to granting agri-environmental payments,
calculated on the basis of cost differences between organic and conventional farming. Whereas paying
organic farmers is eligible as an agri-environment measure under Rural Development Programmes,
Member States apply this measure to a greater or lesser extend.

the Commission would be reluctant

6.
It is the very meaning of ‘internalising environmental costs’, in line with the polluter pays principle,
that the costs of observing obligations under environment legislation remain with the potential polluter.
Therefore,
to reward compliance with mandatory environment
requirements. A different situation is given where farmers commit themselves to deliver environmental
benefits beyond the level of mandatory environmental requirements. Beyond this reference level,
in
agriculture normally referred to as ‘good farming practice’, one would consider the farmer to use his
factors of production for delivering valuable environmental payments. And it is only straightforward to
encourage the provision of such services through financial
incentives as it is done on a voluntary,
contractual basis under the agri-environment measures.

7.
As the Commission expressed clearly in the ‘European Union Strategy for Sustainable Development’
presented at Gothenburg, the reinforcement of the second pillar of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)
and, in particular, the agri-environment measures belong to the top priorities in further developing the
CAP.

(1) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.

(2002/C 205 E/214)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0722/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(15 March 2002)

Subject: Risk of collapse because of non-standard construction methods for motels and restaurants

belonging to the Van der Valk concern with branches in various EU Member States

Is the Commission aware that in the Dutch town of Tiel, on Sunday 10 February, the rooftop car
1.
park of the local motel, built between 1982 and 1986, collapsed and that this accident could have claimed
many lives if it had occurred during the computer fair which had just ended or after the planned
conversion of the car park into a permanent ‘events hall’?

2.
Is the Commission also aware that the motel referred to in question 1 belongs to the Van der Valk
concern, which operates a host of hotels, restaurants and recreational facilities in the Netherlands, many
designed and built by its own construction firm, usually using more light-weight foundations, cheaper
construction materials and non-standard designs and furthermore also exploiting many local authorities’
efforts not to hinder in any way the process of attracting a well known concern’s motel with restaurant

C 205 E/204

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

29.8.2002

annex onto their territory and that, as a result, during construction, the customary checks on material
quality, load bearing capacity and stability are eased or dispensed with?

3.
Is the Commission furthermore aware that in the Netherlands this state of affairs, where there are
usually no design drawings and calculations, as a result of which a number of buildings may possibly
collapse completely or partly in future, has prompted checks not only by local authorities with
responsibility in this area, but also by inspectors from the Ministry for Public Housing, Regional
Development and the Environment, as to how Van der Valk’s buildings came to be constructed and what
materials were used in the process?

4.
Is the Commission aware that there are Van der Valk branches outside the Netherlands, too, at least
21 of which are in EU Member States, i.e. 13 in Germany (some of which were originally planned on the
basis of a contract with the former GDR), six in Belgium (mostly in Flanders), one in France (Saint Aygulf)
and one in Spain (Barcarola)?

5.
In view of the scale of this problem and the possible disastrous consequences, is the Commission
prepared to be of assistance to national and regional authorities in the Member States concerned in passing
on information on this method and help detect concealed problems as quickly as possible?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(26 April 2002)

The Commission does not have any specific information concerning the accidents to which the
Honourable Member refers, nor has it to date been contacted or asked for assistance in this matter by
the Netherlands authorities.

Member States are solely responsible for provisions relating to the construction and safety of buildings and
for investigating any accidents resulting from a failure to comply with these provisions.

In relation to construction, the only relevant Community instrument is Directive 89/106/EEC (1), which
nevertheless only regulates construction products (2) with a view to placing them on the Community
market. The Directive in question states that ‘Member States are responsible for ensuring that building and
civil engineering works on their territory are designed and executed in a way that does not endanger the
safety of persons’.

While including mechanical
resistance and stability of construction works among the essential
requirements applicable to construction products, this Directive does not actually regulate the safety of
buildings and other completed works.

As the Community is not responsible for the safety of buildings, the Commission does not have at its
disposal any specific procedures or networks for assisting the competent national and regional authorities,
for example in identifying risk situations.

(1) Council Directive 89/106/EEC of 21 December 1988 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative

provisions of the Member States relating to construction products D OJ L 40, 11.2.1989.
‘Any product which is produced for incorporation in a permanent manner in construction works’.

(2)

(2002/C 205 E/215)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0728/02

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 March 2002)

Subject: Parental leave for men

Parental leave has been available to women for a long time, but are mothers alone responsible for the
upbringing of their children?